'Presidential' process has truly changed

Published: Monday, October 1, 2012 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, September 28, 2012 at 12:42 p.m.

What does it mean these days to be presidential?

I still remember, as a little girl, seeing President Dwight Eisenhower on television — serious, stern, knowing exactly who was in charge and demanding respect. I was 8 years old at the time, but one session with Eisenhower taught me the meaning of the word presidential.

But words are funny things. Today they mean one thing, tomorrow they can mean something entirely different. Words like cool, or gay, or presidential.

Imagine Eisenhower on Jack Parr's “Tonight Show” (now hosted by Jay Leno) around election time, cutting up with Richard Nixon. Imagine Ike and Dick trading wisecracks and dropping innuendos about Adlai Stevenson, and later Dick closing the show with a jazz set on the piano.

Most Americans my age (60 to 70) would probably have as hard a time picturing that as I do. We want our presidents to be one of us, but at the same time somehow better than us, the great hero-leader archetype, which Eisenhower certainly was.

When Bill Clinton played the saxophone on “The Arsenio Hall Show,” he surprised us. The guy was pretty good. We were even more surprised when he admitted he'd lied to us about a young White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. We want our presidents to be straight up with us, even if they lie about each other.

As confusing as all of this is, it makes perfect sense to voters. Many of today's voters have grown up with reality television. But imagine how different this nation's history would have been if each of our past presidents had to prove himself under the never-sleeping eye of a video camera.

Picture George Washington and his troops, cold, ragged and nearly starving, dragging themselves across the Delaware in the dead of night, only to be ratted out to the British by an overzealous reporter with a camcorder just as they get to the other side.

Imagine the intellectual giant, Thomas Jefferson, falling behind in the Gallop Poll because he's far less accomplished at public speaking than he is at writing.

When the U.S. Navy was dealt a crippling blow at Pearl Harbor, what if the American public had really understood how crippled by polio Franklin Delano Roosevelt actually was?

The presidency has fallen on hard times in that it has been transmogrified into so much more than a way to govern the country. It's a feast of small human errors for talk show hosts to analyze to death; an endless source of fodder for late-night comedians; an ongoing duel between highly trained spin masters delivered right to your living room in time to gauge your reaction in polls crafted by experts in verbal manipulation.

If that last word disturbs you, good. When the most difficult issues facing this nation become the verbal dynamite of people who have degrees in salesmanship instead of years of experience in governing, we're in trouble.

The presidency has always been packaged. All the way back to the first elections between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans, candidates have taken swipes at each other. But when the package itself, rather than what's inside the package, becomes the focus of attention, we have a much bigger problem than a new man in office.

Our 39th president, Jimmy Carter, took office only 35 years ago. But both his campaign and that of his opponent, Gerald Ford, were funded by public financing. So were the campaigns of the next four presidents. But now, “The maximum $91.2 million available for the major parties' nominees is insufficient for the costs of a modern national campaign,” according to an election information website.

What exactly is at stake when a candidate must bow and scrape to wealthy donors or large corporations in order to fund his (or her) campaign? Think about that.

Now think about something else. What was the most important campaign issue in the fall of 1987? Can't quite remember? Neither can I. And that's exactly the point. Issues come and issues go, and usually four years down the line, few of us can even remember them.

But the process remains. We still have to elect a president. We will always need a leader. And not just one leader but many leaders. We need good men and women to step up to the challenge of governing a nation that has chosen to draw its leadership from among its own people.

Now ask yourself: Why would corporations or wealthy donors throw huge piles of money into an election about issues that almost no one will remember five years from now? Think about that.

They'd probably do it for the same reasons thousands of average voters contributed to Barack Obama's campaign four years ago. They believe they will get a solid return from it. They are willing to pay to fund the kind of changes they want to see in Washington. (Oh, that Mr. Obama had not wasted his time and political capital trying to work with rivals who had vowed to destroy him.)

And what would those changes be? Ask yourself: If I were independently wealthy or the CEO of a large corporation, what would I want the current nominee to do for me if he were elected?

And the most critical question of all: Are the interests of corporate America or wealthy America the same as the interests of the average American?

Shall we choose a candidate that a small but privileged few know will support their long-term agenda, or will we elect a president to lead the entire nation, all of us, through this critical time in its history?

<p>What does it mean these days to be presidential?</p><p>I still remember, as a little girl, seeing President Dwight Eisenhower on television — serious, stern, knowing exactly who was in charge and demanding respect. I was 8 years old at the time, but one session with Eisenhower taught me the meaning of the word presidential.</p><p>But words are funny things. Today they mean one thing, tomorrow they can mean something entirely different. Words like cool, or gay, or presidential.</p><p>Imagine Eisenhower on Jack Parr's “Tonight Show” (now hosted by Jay Leno) around election time, cutting up with Richard Nixon. Imagine Ike and Dick trading wisecracks and dropping innuendos about Adlai Stevenson, and later Dick closing the show with a jazz set on the piano.</p><p>Most Americans my age (60 to 70) would probably have as hard a time picturing that as I do. We want our presidents to be one of us, but at the same time somehow better than us, the great hero-leader archetype, which Eisenhower certainly was.</p><p>When Bill Clinton played the saxophone on “The Arsenio Hall Show,” he surprised us. The guy was pretty good. We were even more surprised when he admitted he'd lied to us about a young White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. We want our presidents to be straight up with us, even if they lie about each other.</p><p>As confusing as all of this is, it makes perfect sense to voters. Many of today's voters have grown up with reality television. But imagine how different this nation's history would have been if each of our past presidents had to prove himself under the never-sleeping eye of a video camera.</p><p>Picture George Washington and his troops, cold, ragged and nearly starving, dragging themselves across the Delaware in the dead of night, only to be ratted out to the British by an overzealous reporter with a camcorder just as they get to the other side.</p><p>Imagine the intellectual giant, Thomas Jefferson, falling behind in the Gallop Poll because he's far less accomplished at public speaking than he is at writing.</p><p>When the U.S. Navy was dealt a crippling blow at Pearl Harbor, what if the American public had really understood how crippled by polio Franklin Delano Roosevelt actually was?</p><p>The presidency has fallen on hard times in that it has been transmogrified into so much more than a way to govern the country. It's a feast of small human errors for talk show hosts to analyze to death; an endless source of fodder for late-night comedians; an ongoing duel between highly trained spin masters delivered right to your living room in time to gauge your reaction in polls crafted by experts in verbal manipulation.</p><p>If that last word disturbs you, good. When the most difficult issues facing this nation become the verbal dynamite of people who have degrees in salesmanship instead of years of experience in governing, we're in trouble.</p><p>The presidency has always been packaged. All the way back to the first elections between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans, candidates have taken swipes at each other. But when the package itself, rather than what's inside the package, becomes the focus of attention, we have a much bigger problem than a new man in office.</p><p>Our 39th president, Jimmy Carter, took office only 35 years ago. But both his campaign and that of his opponent, Gerald Ford, were funded by public financing. So were the campaigns of the next four presidents. But now, “The maximum $91.2 million available for the major parties' nominees is insufficient for the costs of a modern national campaign,” according to an election information website.</p><p>What exactly is at stake when a candidate must bow and scrape to wealthy donors or large corporations in order to fund his (or her) campaign? Think about that.</p><p>Now think about something else. What was the most important campaign issue in the fall of 1987? Can't quite remember? Neither can I. And that's exactly the point. Issues come and issues go, and usually four years down the line, few of us can even remember them.</p><p>But the process remains. We still have to elect a president. We will always need a leader. And not just one leader but many leaders. We need good men and women to step up to the challenge of governing a nation that has chosen to draw its leadership from among its own people.</p><p>Now ask yourself: Why would corporations or wealthy donors throw huge piles of money into an election about issues that almost no one will remember five years from now? Think about that.</p><p>They'd probably do it for the same reasons thousands of average voters contributed to Barack Obama's campaign four years ago. They believe they will get a solid return from it. They are willing to pay to fund the kind of changes they want to see in Washington. (Oh, that Mr. Obama had not wasted his time and political capital trying to work with rivals who had vowed to destroy him.)</p><p>And what would those changes be? Ask yourself: If I were independently wealthy or the CEO of a large corporation, what would I want the current nominee to do for me if he were elected?</p><p>And the most critical question of all: Are the interests of corporate America or wealthy America the same as the interests of the average American?</p><p>Shall we choose a candidate that a small but privileged few know will support their long-term agenda, or will we elect a president to lead the entire nation, all of us, through this critical time in its history?</p>